Spoilers The Bastardization of Star Trek

[CorporalCaptain]

I think that the scene in "Move Along Home" when Dax figures out how to do the hopscotch is magnificent.

"But you didn't say the rhyme." Damn right, Jadzia. It's space magic!

 

[Lord Garth]

I've done it. I've watched part of it. Most of it. Have to get ready for work. Will finish the rest of it later.

But what did I think of the episode? I'm Lord Garth. A lot of it's not my type of music, but I used to be in chorus when I was in school. And...

I know what the mods are thinking now about spoilers
The mods are thinking, "My Gods!"
But I used to be like you
I had the same position as you
In the same forum as you
And I was thinking what was I going to do?

So I'll respect the decorum
And take my thoughts to the right forum
When I have time to post my opinion tonight
And I'm sure it won't start an internet fight

People asked what did I think
Probably a good thing this thread had some drinks!

 

[Jedman67]

Star Trek has been (largely) unrealistic since the 1960s.

Historical Documents

 

[Greg Cox]

I never watched TOS, but there are plenty of other examples that show you're right.

Nothing personal, and at the risk of wildly generalizing, it does sometimes seem like a lot of the Trek debates here and elsewhere stem from some of us having grown up on TOS and others having grown up on TNG and its various spinoffs. And not just in terms of continuity issues, but also with regards to expectations, priorities, tone, etc.

Give it a few years, and the folks growing on the new streaming shows will consider them the "real" STAR TREK, and its the new shows that will shape their expectations of what "Star Trek" should be. That's just the natural life-cycle of pop culture.

Not that it's entirely just a generational thing. There's also the fact that, regardless of our respective ages, different fans have different priorities: some folks are all into the science and tech stuff, others are all about the topical allegories and morality plays, some folks are really invested in TNG's "utopian" vision while some of us prefer the more rough-and-tumble Final Frontier of Kirk and Co.

And as for how scientifically accurate TREK should be . . . well, this is an old, old debate that dates back to the dawn of science fiction. Jules Verne complained that H. G. Wells wasn't scientifically rigorous enough, what with his time machine and anti-gravity element and invisibility serum, and SF fans, writers, and editors have been arguing ever since about whether SF is properly "SCIENCE Fiction" or "Science FICTION."

Trek swings both ways, depending.

 

[Tuskin38]

I mean, they’ve been trying to get that musical episode off the ground since the TNG days, with the most recent attempt prior to SNW being ENT.

Actually, they tried to do it for Picard before SNW
https://movieweb.com/star-trek-stra...rd-to-first-musical-episode-in-the-franchise/

New level of cringe.

Nope, it was hilarious.

 

[Campe]

Yeah, to each his own, but as someone who spent a third of his life in the theatre, I've seen (and been in a) a lot of cringey musicals in my life. "Subspace Rhapsody" is cheesy AF in the same way that most musicals are cheesy but cringey? Yeah, no. Not in my book anyway.

As others have dropped the term "cringe" in other threads, I could be mistaken, but I feel as this is a talking point from somewhere else.

 

[fireproof78]

I think it's just a broad sweeping generic term for "discomfort," nowadays, popularized by looking at old media and going "Uh, how did people act that way? So cringe."

As for Trek and cringe, well I've had that since TOS. So...new level? Yeah, not even close. And this episode is not one I have watched much of.

 

[drt]

Nothing personal, and at the risk of wildly generalizing, it does sometimes seem like a lot of the Trek debates here and elsewhere stem from some of us having grown up on TOS and others having grown up on TNG and its various spinoffs. And not just in terms of continuity issues, but also with regards to expectations, priorities, tone, etc.

Agreed. To follow up on the continuity/"canon" arguments, I think there are a fair number of TNG era fans who mistakenly believe because those shows faithfully recreated the TOS look on a couple of occasions that the Berman era was equally faithful with regard to continuity, when in fact they changed and retconned things just as much as any of the newer productions.

 

[Kor]

I haven't read the whole thread, but.... in reference to Guinan, in TNG "Time's Arrow" they actually traveled back to the 19th century, not the 18th. It was the lifetime of Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain).

So why doesn't 21st century Guinan remember Picard in Picard S2? Showrunner Terry Matalas addressed this directly:

“This Guinan wouldn't remember Picard because in this alternate timeline, the TNG episode "Time's Arrow" never happened. Because there was no Federation, those events did not play out the same. No previous relationship exists. However, she still was likely traveling to Earth and, as we know, she hung around a bit. So this Guinan is different. But she, of course, can sense something is off. She's going through a kind of time-sickness thanks to Q's meddling with the timeline.”

(Source: Inverse)

So the whole thing with Devidia II and traveling back in time to 19th century San Francisco simply did not happen in this timeline, where Earth is this conquering Confederation instead of part of a cooperative United Federation of Planets. Therefore, 24th-century Picard never met 19th-century Guinan. And guess what, if Picard in this timeline had gone back in time to the 19th century, then it would have been the bloodthirsty, conquering, xenophobic Picard of the Confederation of Earth, not our mild-mannered and noble Picard. What kind of havoc would he have wrought on 19th-century earth? And if Guinan had run into that guy back then, then she probably would sic'ed Luna on Picard immediately or blasted him with that shotgun the instant he showed up at her bar in the 21st century.

Kor

 

[The Wormhole]

Unfortunately, Lord Terry's explanation doesn't quite hold up since Punk on the Bus still remembers his experience with Kirk and Spock in the 80s.

 

[fireproof78]

Unfortunately, Lord Terry's explanation doesn't quite hold up since Punk on the Bus still remembers his experience with Kirk and Spock in the 80s.

Well, you see, that's completely different as the thing with Kirk and Spock involved time travel, while the thing with Guinan involved time travel.

I trust you see the difference.

 

[cooleddie74]

"Temporal Muscle Memory"? Because the timeline's changed it technically hasn't happened in that 1986 but a temporal echo still exists and vibrates across space-time to make the Bus Punk have a physical memory of the original event?

 

[fireproof78]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Tuskin38]

Unfortunately, Lord Terry's explanation doesn't quite hold up since Punk on the Bus still remembers his experience with Kirk and Spock in the 80s.

Fourth wall breaking Easter egg.

"Temporal Muscle Memory"? Because the timeline's changed it technically hasn't happened in that 1986 but a temporal echo still exists and vibrates across space-time to make the Bus Punk have a physical memory of the original event?

Maybe he's an El-Aurian.

 

[cooleddie74]

An El-Aurian CAN hate you. I did watch GEN.

 

[donners22]

Agreed. To follow up on the continuity/"canon" arguments, I think there are a fair number of TNG era fans who mistakenly believe because those shows faithfully recreated the TOS look on a couple of occasions that the Berman era was equally faithful with regard to continuity, when in fact they changed and retconned things just as much as any of the newer productions.

The only good TNG movie directly retcons two of the best episodes - Space Seed (which said the last world war was the Eugenics War in the ‘90s) and Best of Both Worlds (which certainly didn’t have a Borg Queen).

 

[Citiprime]

The other explanation for all the weirdness in Picard season 2 is that Q makes all of it possible, the same way he broke the laws of the universe in TNG's "Deja Q" and "Q Pid," and reality is being held together artificially by Q not so different from the constructed reality of Robin Hood and Sherwood Forest, since even in its resolution it's all a huge paradox that falls apart if you think about it too hard.

The Borg Queen is from a timeline that never existed but still exists in the Prime Timeline with Jurati and travels aboard a ship from a timeline that never existed to form the new Borg community. But if that timeline was averted, how did they travel from it to save the original timeline? How is Elnor alive in the end?

Answer: Q.

 

[PCz911]

Nothing personal, and at the risk of wildly generalizing, it does sometimes seem like a lot of the Trek debates here and elsewhere stem from some of us having grown up on TOS and others having grown up on TNG and its various spinoffs. And not just in terms of continuity issues, but also with regards to expectations, priorities, tone, etc.

Give it a few years, and the folks growing on the new streaming shows will consider them the "real" STAR TREK, and its the new shows that will shape their expectations of what "Star Trek" should be. That's just the natural life-cycle of pop culture.

Not that it's entirely just a generational thing. There's also the fact that, regardless of our respective ages, different fans have different priorities: some folks are all into the science and tech stuff, others are all about the topical allegories and morality plays, some folks are really invested in TNG's "utopian" vision while some of us prefer the more rough-and-tumble Final Frontier of Kirk and Co.

Well said! This is the strategic perspective and should end a lot of the “blovation” (from earlier in the thread. I confess, I had to look it up) between the various cohorts.

 

[Lord Garth]

Nothing personal, and at the risk of wildly generalizing, it does sometimes seem like a lot of the Trek debates here and elsewhere stem from some of us having grown up on TOS and others having grown up on TNG and its various spinoffs. And not just in terms of continuity issues, but also with regards to expectations, priorities, tone, etc.

Give it a few years, and the folks growing on the new streaming shows will consider them the "real" STAR TREK, and its the new shows that will shape their expectations of what "Star Trek" should be. That's just the natural life-cycle of pop culture.

Not that it's entirely just a generational thing. There's also the fact that, regardless of our respective ages, different fans have different priorities: some folks are all into the science and tech stuff, others are all about the topical allegories and morality plays, some folks are really invested in TNG's "utopian" vision while some of us prefer the more rough-and-tumble Final Frontier of Kirk and Co.

And as for how scientifically accurate TREK should be . . . well, this is an old, old debate that dates back to the dawn of science fiction. Jules Verne complained that H. G. Wells wasn't scientifically rigorous enough, what with his time machine and anti-gravity element and invisibility serum, and SF fans, writers, and editors have been arguing ever since about whether SF is properly "SCIENCE Fiction" or "Science FICTION."

Trek swings both ways, depending.

People say we have almost 60 years worth of Star Trek. And that's true, except 65% of it is TNG, DS9, VOY, and the TNG Movies. 65% is really just 14 years from 1987 to 2001. And then the other 35% is everything else. So, I think it gives some people a warped perspective.

 

[Greg Cox]

People say we have almost 60 years worth of Star Trek. And that's true, except 65% of it is TNG, DS9, VOY, and the TNG Movies. 65% is really just 14 years from 1987 to 2001. And then the other 35% is everything else. So, I think it gives some people a warped perspective.

Although, as a matter of perspective, many of us remember when TOS was 100% of STAR TREK and we watched those same 79 episodes over and over and over the whole time we were growing up, so, emotionally at least, they carry a lot more weight than the math might suggest -- at least if you don't factor in that TOS was STAR TREK for more than two decades, from 1966 to 1987.

(Okay, there was also TAS, but that was just an offshoot of TOS.)